See, this is the problem with Microsoft giving pointer types names that do not look like pointers. Long pointer to TCHAR string (source) Your LPTSTR doesn't actually contain a string; like a char* (or wchar_t*), it merely points to one. You can play with the lifetime of the pointer all...

Your setWeight(int) has a bug; you pass in w but use weight in the assignment. I'm pretty sure you wanted public void setWeight(int w){ // this.weight = weight; this.weight = w; } Also, you should probably call myMonkey2.setWeight() somewhere. And don't forget to call myMonkey.setColor(myFavoriteMonkeyColor) and myMonkey2.setColor() somewhere as well....

This isn't a question of inheritance — inheritance governs what behaviour a subclass will acquire from its parent. The issue seems to be one of instances. ReportViewController is a class. So it's not an actual actor. It's just the description of how any ReportViewControllers that are created will act. Like...

The TypeScript specification (8.4.3) says... Accessors for the same member name must specify the same accessibility So you have to choose a suitable alternative. Here are two options for you: You can just not have a setter, which means only the Test class is able to set the property. You...

The @a.setter decorator ignores the docstring and it is not copied to the resulting property object; set the docstring on the getter instead. See the property documentation: If given, doc will be the docstring of the property attribute. Otherwise, the property will copy fget‘s docstring (if it exists). Emphasis mine....

If your class has a member pointer that can be null, then simply return the pointer from the getter function and have the user worry about the corner cases. Type1* GetType1(){ return this->type1; } void SetType1(Type1* type1) { this->type1 = type1; } If, by any chance the member cannot actually...

You can do whatever you like but you should use the second option. This is because it will be something like code documentation if other developer see it he or she will know that you copy the string just by looking at: @property (copy, nonatomic) NSString *someString; The same if...

To answer your question, separate getters and setters are at the core of encapsulation. While it may save you an extra function call, it's much cleaner and safer to have separate functions for getting and setting. Here's some tweaked code to understand better class Derived : public Base { public:...

First of all, don't listen to anyone saying "there is no object-orientation in language x" because they have truly not understood that OO is a program design method, completely apart from language syntax. Some languages have elegant ways to implement OO, some have not. Yet it is possible to write...

You can use __lookupSetter__ for this. So simply calling o.__lookupSetter__('current').toString() should give you your desired output. Source Update This is already deprecated though. You should be using the standard Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor instead. So calling Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(o, 'current').set.toString() will work for your use case. Source...

I'm not sure what you mean by creating a lambda expression for the setter. What it looks like you are trying to do is to assign the method reference to a suitable Functional Interface. In that case, the best match is to a BiConsumer: BiConsumer<Student, String> studentNameSetter = Student::setName; ...

There are several ways to do this. Constructor function and Object.defineProperty To do it within a constructor function like you have, you'd use Object.defineProperty or Object.defineProperties. For instance: function Testing(){ this.value = "content"; Object.defineProperty(this, "a", { set: function(b){ this.value = b; } }); } Live Example: function Testing() { this.value...

Why properties? For starters, a quick summary from the documentation on properties: A property, like a field, defines an attribute of an object. But while a field is merely a storage location whose contents can be examined and changed, a property associates specific actions with reading or modifying its data....

You can use a @property whose setter raises an exception: class CameraInterface(object): @property def recording_quality(self): return self._quality @recording_quality.setter def recording_quality(self, quality): if self.recording: raise CurrentlyRecordingError() self._quality = quality Where CurrentlyRecordingError is a custom exception; it could be a subclass of ValueError. In Python, using exceptions is the most natural way...

The attributes of Core Data managed objects are not backed-up by instance variables. An attribute can be set using the property syntax: object.myAttribute = bar; or with Key-Value Coding: [object setValue:bar forKey:@"myAttribute"]; and in both cases the setter method -(void)setMyAttribute:(MyAttribute *)value; is called. Setter and getter method are usually created...

You can make the fields final and add the Canonical transform to get the c'tor created automatically for you. Or even easier use the Immutable transform: @groovy.transform.Immutable class A { String x } def a = new A("x") assert a.x == "x" // a.x = "will fail" // a.setX("will fail")...

Properties are actually methods in C#. And what you have shown in the code is an auto-implemented property. It's a sytantic sugar for this: // this backing field is generated by compiler int alertLevel; public int AlertLevel { get { return alertLevel; } private set { alertLevel = value; }...

One way is to just store each row into a Map. To do this, you can retrieve the column names using ResultSetMetaData (key = column name) or you can just retrieve the column values using the column index (key = index). ResultSet can deal with it both ways. Then, your...

First possibility You could try doing this but as I haven't developed anything using ImpactJS it may not work as expected as it depends what the .class.extend() function does internally. But it's worth a try. var ServerData = ig.class.Extend((function() { var privateVar = -1; return { getVariable: function() { return...

The setters and getter are defined properly. Your problem is in the main method, where you call the setters as if they are static methods : userCar.setCarYear(Integer.parseInt(userCarInput[0])); userCar.setCarSpeed(Integer.parseInt(userCarInput[2])); userCar.setCarMake(userCarInput[1]); You should call them on your instance : ourCar.setCarYear(Integer.parseInt(userCarInput[0])); ourCar.setCarSpeed(Integer.parseInt(userCarInput[2])); ourCar.setCarMake(userCarInput[1]); ...

Why do you think it looks odd? You've just manually implemented a "property" and added simple bounds checking – a good reason to implement a property yourself. Is it thread-safe enough? Well it either is or it isn't, and @synchronized certainly makes it so. There might be more efficient, lower-level,...

You are not setting the property. You are manipulating a mutable object. The assignment is not on the property itself, but on a subscription, the [..] part addresses a dictionary key. You could assign the property to a new name and still manipulate that dictionary: parrot = Parrot() parrot_voltage =...

1) When the property is set, the code first calls the getter to see if the value is different. If it's the same then the setter isn't called (explains the first get/set pair). 2) If the property is bound, after it's set any access will call the getters (explains the...

The issue you have is that you are not really calling foo= method, but you execute assignment. Ruby interprets it as: A.new.foo = ("foo").tap{puts "a"} Hence it firstly executes tap on 'foo' and then executes assignment. To see that everything is fine try: A.new.send(:foo=, 'foo').tap {puts 'a'} ...

As far as I know, a property either has a value (data property), or it has getter/setter (accessor property): it cannot have both. Use a local variable under closure, or another property, as an underlying storage for properties where you have a getter/setter defined. For example, (function() { var value;...

Removing with listOfInstances.get(1).getArrayList().remove(1); is enough and valid. In order to demonstrate this, I've written a test code for you. I've just removed the second object's ArrayList's second String element, you can compare the initial and updated states; import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.Arrays; public class TestQuestion { public static void main(String[] args)...

Okay, a final parameter/variable cannot be assigned to. As the java compiler needs to be capable to determine if a variable/parameter is actually final (for anonymous inner classes), optimization is no factor AFAIK. It is more that C++ has a larger tool set, which java tried to reduce. Hence using...

The compiler only automatically synthesizes the instance variable for a property if it has to synthesize at least one accessor method. If you implement both setter and getter method for your property (or if you implement the getter for a read-only property), the instance variable is not synthesized automatically. In...

You're confusing fields (or instance variables) with properties. property is a term coming from the Java Beans specification. A property foo of a bean is data that can be accessed using a getter method called getFoo() (or isFoo() for a boolean) and/or set using a setter method called setFoo(). What...

This line: C1.MyProperty = x; means that MyProperty is pointing to the same reference as x, so any change in elements of x is visible to your property as well. The code is currently doing shallow copying. A simple fix could be: C1.MyProperty = x.ToArray(); ToArray will create a new...

Just to get the most important part out of the way: You should NEVER use static variables in Android unless you know exactly what you are doing. Otherwise you are going to create memory leaks and a whole other slew of problems. If you want to pass data to another...

Usually, the field matches the name of the setter. In this way you can induce the name of the field from the setter by convention. If you need to find the actual field set, you need to examine the byte code. You can obtain the byte code of the class...

You should set this.NameCheck instead of this.name in your constructor public Create(string aName, int aHealth, int aMSpeed, Role aRole, Speciality aSpeciality) { this.NameCheck = aName; also you should check value for emptiness or being null instead of name in your property setter set { if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value)) { ...

I think you are a Java beginner, or a OOP beginner. In Java, all functions/methods should be insides of a class, even main function. Here is the code: class ConcertSales{ public int numberOfSeatTypesA; public int numberOfSeatTypesB; public double pricePerSeatA; public double pricePerSeatB; public double totalSales; public int getNumberOfSeatTypesA(){ return numberOfSeatTypesA;...

Is it possible to define the same setters and getters on different properties of an object? Yes, although it's not recommended as you can see from your experience. what am I doing wrong, and why do my properties behave like they're the same property? Because they store/access the value...

Short version: no. You cannot monkey-patch types in .NET, so no, you cannot do this. If the existing set mechanism is protected, the closest you could do would be to subclass and use member-hiding to re-declare the property with a public set. However, that will only be available to code...

Method chaining may look nice in some situations, but I would not overuse it. It does get used a lot in the builder pattern, as mentioned in another comment. To some degree it's probably a matter of personal preference. One disadvantage of method chaining in my opinion is with debugging...

You can set attributes dynamically with the setattr() function; this applies to attributes that are really properties too. You can create a setter with a lambda function or with functools.partial(): objectList.append(DataObject(foo.c, lambda val: setattr(foo, 'c', val))) or from functools import partial objectList.append(DataObject(foo.c, partial(setattr, foo, 'c'))) ...

1) If you use int? as type for Level, it will be NULL when not setted. public Class User { public string Name { get; set; } public string Surname { get; set; } public int? Level {get;set;} } 2) you can use the setter of the level attribute and...

If the question is about the System.Windows.Controls.DataGrid, you would write it without a XAML namespace prefix: <DataGrid ...> <DataGrid.ItemsSource> <MultiBinding Converter="..."> <Binding ... /> <Binding ... /> </MultiBinding> </DataGrid.ItemsSource> </DataGrid> ...

What you want looks like design error. In C# property's setter and getter have always the same type. So you have basically next choices: Make your property type object (or dynamic if you want to get even worse design) and transform values within the setter as you stated in the...

The result is the same but the first one is better from point of performance and multithreading. The autorelease pool will take some extra resources, put the object onto some stack which calls release in the next thread cycle. If you are using this in other then main thread you...

You should change : System.out.println("Age ", + student1.getAge()); to System.out.println("Age " + student1.getAge()); System.out.println takes a single argument. As for determineTypeOfStudent - you call it with no arguments, but it is declare to accept a single int argument. In addition, you should consider whether you really want that method to...

Since your goal is: My goal is to set the value of tName equal the value of vorlesung.lectureName. You should get rid of the setName method entirely since it will depend entirely on the vorlesung field and so should not be changeable. You should also get rid of the tName...

Sounds like you want to use an implicitly unwrapped optional. Since your getter is just a wrapper for a non optional UIImage you know that your getter will always produce a non nil value (and since image is implicitly unwrapped, it will be treated as such), but this will also...

You need a getter for your String color attribute in Circle class, then use it as you are already doing with radius and area. Apart of that, I would recommend you creating setters for the fields in Circle class in order to change the values of the attributes per instance....

@ManagedProperty(value = "#{userService}") probably does nothing here, since UserService is not a JSF managed bean (judging from the code in your comment). You are combining two dependency injection strategies, where you only need one (setter is required for @ManagedProperty). If you remove @ManagedProperty and leave only @Autowired, I think it...

In my opinion it depends on the situation. The example you listed is a pretty simple class with only simple types. I would consider that all right. However, I am not really sure about your statement considering setters. But there is something you might have to consider: If you are...

Using Listeners to be notified of changes in mutated state Almost everything exposed in the JavaFX public API is a property, so one way to hook into mutate operations is to add ChangeListeners (or InvalidationListeners). See the JavaFX property documentation for more information (the following snippet is copied from there):...

You can't, or really shouldn't, have a design where the sub types "hide" functionality of the base type. You can: In your setters throw a NotSupportedException, or similar. This is how the Stream class behaves when you try to set the length of a stream that cannot be set. Change...

As Thomas mentioned, those are the same things. You may wonder what the point of getter and setter is in that case and it's mainly syntactic sugar. However, it also means you don't have to create an explicit field as one is created for you in the background. Therefore, you...

Getters and setters are called by Hibernate during entity lifecycle, so it isn't guaranteed that this setter won't be called with null value. To avoid this error simply check if the parameter is null public void setProteinData(ProteinData proteinData) { this.proteinData = proteinData; if (proteinData != null) { proteinData.setUser(this); } }...

This would be better written as a callback. You can use a before_save callback to check for a parent_task and if it is set, clear groups_belonging_to: class Task < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :parent_task, class_name: 'Task', foreign_key: 'parent_task_id' before_save :clear_groups if: :parent_task def clear_groups self.groups_belonging_to = [] end end ...

You have two closing brackets in the while loop below. This is causing the error on line 113 and line 119. Just remove the bracket after depositFile.close();. // read each line while((dLine = depositFile.readLine()) != null) { double userDeposit; userDeposit=Double.parseDouble(dLine); userAccount.setDeposit(userDeposit); } // <--------------- HERE -------------------- depositFile.close();} // <------------ AND...

I see some problems in your code: why does an instance of Sandwich should have two Bread object within? A sandwich is usually made by one type of bread. the caloriesPerSlice and caloriesPerServing should be respectively attributes of Bread and Filling. you can't pass a String parameter to setFilling(Filling filling)...

Advantage The getters and setters will be inlined so they will have no function overhead. Disadvantage You will be unable to make any changes to your getter and setter without having to recompile all code using your class. This is especially bad when the implementation of your class lies in...